Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 4659 (MAD)

Ponnusamy & Another v. V. E. Kannan & Another

2008-12-15

M.VENUGOPAL

body2008
Judgment :- 1. The revision petitioners/appellants/respondents/defendants have filed this present civil revision petition as against the Judgment made in C.M.A.No.25 of 2008 dated 9. 2008 on the file of Principal Sub Court, Erode in dismissing the appeal. 2. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners/ appellants/respondents/defendants contends that Exs A4 and A5 convey more properties that was allotted to Periyasamy Gounder and hence the trial Court ought to have dismissed the application in I.A.No.368 of 2008 and the respondents/respondents/ petitioners/ plaintiffs do not have the title beyond what is owned by their vendor under Exs A1 and A3 and the trial Court by virtue of Exs B1 to B11 ought to have dismissed I.A.No.368 of 2008 and that the trial Court has not taken into account of Exs B3 to B11, the revenue records and moreover respondents/respondents/petitioners/plaintiffs have not proved the factum of possession and the lower Court has not borne in mind the fact that an injunction cannot be granted based upon Ex A3 Will and therefore prays for allowing this revision in the interest of justice. 3. It is to be noted that the respondents/respondents/ petitioners/plaintiffs have filed a suit before the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Perundurai praying for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents etc from trespassing into the suit properties or interfering in any manner with the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. 4. The trial Court, while passing orders in I.A.NO.368 of 2008 the application for interim injunction holding that the respondents/ petitioners/plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties as per Exs A1 to A22 and prima facie, they have got a case of grant of ad interim injunction and resultantly allowed the application. 5. As a matter of fact, before the trial Court on either side documents Exs A1 to A22 and Exs R1 to R11 were marked. Aggrieved against the orders passed in I.A.No.368 of 2008 dated 16. 2008 by the trial Court, the defendants as appellants have projected C.M.A.No.25 of 2008 and the first appellate Court has dismissed the said appeal inter alia holding that the respondents/plaintiffs are entitled to get the relief of ad interim injunction and resultantly dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved against the orders passed in I.A.No.368 of 2008 dated 16. 2008 by the trial Court, the defendants as appellants have projected C.M.A.No.25 of 2008 and the first appellate Court has dismissed the said appeal inter alia holding that the respondents/plaintiffs are entitled to get the relief of ad interim injunction and resultantly dismissed the appeal. Moreover, the first appellate authority in paragraph 20 of his order has categorically opined that the respondents/petitioners/plaintiffs have purchased the property from one Chenniappa Gounder through Exs A4 and A5 and therefore they have obtained patta and they are in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Therefore, in view of the concurrent findings taken by the lower Courts, this Court, without going into the merits of the case, is of the considered view that since the main suit itself is only for injunction, the parties are at liberty to adduce oral and documentary evidence and project their case to thrash out all issues and in that view of the matter, disposes of the civil revision without costs. 6. In the result, this civil revision petition is dismissed. The order passed by the Principal Subordinate Judge Erode, Erode District in C.M.A.No.25 of 2008 is affirmed by this Court for the reasons assigned in this revision. Liberty is given to the parties to adduce their oral and documentary evidence in the main suit and to project their respective stands and the trial Court is directed to dispose of the main suit within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, uninfluenced with any of the observation made by this Court in this revision. There will be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected M.P.No.1 of 2008 is also dismissed.